comment_on_post

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It usefully warns that comments are public and instructs the agent to confirm wording first, which is important for a social write action. It does not discuss permanence or editability, but the key public-facing behavior is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes only necessary details. Every sentence adds value: the action, the param format, and the public-confirmation warning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete enough for this two-parameter tool with an output schema present. It covers the tricky `post` format and the behavioral caveat. It could mention authentication requirements more explicitly, but 'as the authenticated user' sufficiently implies the auth context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the `post` parameter's accepted formats (URN or URL), but the `text` parameter is only implied as the comment wording and lacks explicit semantic detail such as formatting or length constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Comment on a LinkedIn post') and the acting identity ('as the authenticated user'), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_post and like_post. It is specific about the resource and what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context for use and an explicit precondition: confirm wording with the user first because comments are public. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the action is distinct enough among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.